Category Archives: Media Criticism

The Full Romney Inaugural Speech

Like Ramesh Ponnuru, I’ve been dumpster diving, and acquired the entire draft of Mitt Romney’s speech for his inauguration (that Ramesh merely excerpted from an earlier one). The governor apparently wrote it despite the fact that he didn’t want to be president very much (thanks a heap, Republican establishment, for delivering unto us yet another outstanding nominee). Reading it in its entirety makes it little easier to understand President Obama’s Gettysburgesque speech on Monday. It does clearly illuminate the character of the monster who gleefully killed that unemployed guy’s wife with cancer, and tried to keep Sandra Fluke off the pill, along with the other women in binders.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Vice President Ryan, Mr. Chief Justice, members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens, each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional, what makes us America is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

But we also know that these truths are self executing, and that there is no need for the federal government.

Many say that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers. Some foolishly believe that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play. Many even claim that a great nation must care for the vulnerable and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Well, that’s all nonsense. Travel and commerce worked just fine in the days of horses and canal boats — our nation sustained great economic growth then. And when you overeducate people, it just raises their expectations. Rules that ensure competition and so-called “fair play” just inhibit trade and development. And what kind of pansy nation have we become that we think we need government, and particularly the federal government, to protect us from misfortune. Grow a pair, people!

Just as I believe that we could have defeated the communists and fascists with muskets and militia, I believe that even if we do need railroads and highways, we don’t need a government to do it. We have learned from the last four years that it is a mistake to rely on each other and to work together. It is my firm belief that one man, by himself, can train the nation’s math and science teachers — and probably, if he really tries, the nation’s English teachers as well. One man, acting alone, can build all the labs and networks and roads we need. When he is not training those teachers. Yeah, I’m talking about the same guy. What we must resolve never to do is work alongside one another.

I’ll go farther and forthrightly state that the notion that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity is socialistic nonsense. In fact, the key to our country’s success is to have a shrinking few do very well, while the vast majority can barely make it. It toughens them up. Also, children born in the bleakest poverty must learn to accept their fate. That’s just the luck of the draw. The way to reform entitlements is to stop taking care of the generation that built this country. We’ve just got to go cold turkey on that.

And when it comes to freedom, obviously it is reserved for the lucky, and happiness is only for the few. That’s just the way it’s always been, and the way it should be.

I totally reject the overwhelming judgment of science. What do scientists know, anyway? I don’t need science when I have the Book of Mormon.

And even if it’s getting a little warm, and blizzardy and tornadoey, and the planet is on fire, we’ll be OK for a while, and even if not, I repeat, grow a pair, people! Anyway, we have no obligations to posterity — what did posterity ever do for us? We have obligations only to ourselves.

As for technology, I want to cede it to other nations. All it does is generate new products that most people can’t afford anyway.

And I want to come out firmly in favor of perpetual war. It pumps up the economy, and gets all those unemployed people off the streets, so I don’t have to look at them begging when I drive by in my limo. As president, I’m going to invade every country in the world that so much as looks crossways at us.

That’s all I have to say.

So God bless you, and go out and get a job.

Losers.

As Ramesh says, we really dodged a bullet there.

AR-15s

Why young women want them:

Imagining ourselves in a high-stress, violent situation, we want a gun with enough ammo, and more, to get the job done. Sometimes, you only get one shot. At other times, you may need more. When you don’t have time to reload in the heat of a home invasion, the AR-15’s 30-round magazine gives you the flexibility and security a handgun will not.

High-capacity magazines serve as a life-saving insurance mechanism, a self-defense back-up if something doesn’t go according to plan. Yet you would never think of these guns in this sense by listening to anti-gun zealots and their allies in media.

Assault rifles and high-capacity magazines have been under fire from our nation’s legislators since the Newtown massacre. It only took Senator Dianne Feinstein two days to announce her intention to reinstate the Clinton-era assault-weapons ban to get “these dangerous weapons of war off our streets.” New York governor Andrew Cuomo took it upon himself to make his state the first to tighten gun laws post-Newtown, proudly outlawing magazines over seven rounds because “no one needs ten bullets to kill a deer.”

Senator Feinstein and Governor Cuomo: We may not need ten bullets to kill a deer, but we sure need them in our own defense. Criminals rarely use assault rifles. Nearly ten times as many murders are committed with hammers and clubs, and 35 times as many with knives. Does that mean we need to ban those too, Senator Feinstein? Banning assault weapons will only take weapons away from my house — not from criminals on the street.

God made man and woman. Sam Colt made them equal.

Of course, it’s not really about keeping them away from criminals, unless you consider free men and women who might thwart your plans for them to be inherently criminals.

The Romney Inaugural Address

Heh:

We have learned from the last four years that it is a mistake to rely on each other and to work together. It is my firm belief that one man, by himself, can train the nation’s math and science teachers—and probably, if he really tries, the nation’s English teachers as well. One man, acting alone, can build all the labs and networks and roads we need. When he is not training those teachers. Yeah, I’m talking about the same guy. What we must resolve never to do is work alongside one another.

Has there ever been prior president so given to outrageous straw men and refusal to grant good faith to his political opponents?

Obama’s Un-American Beliefs

The NRA has higher approval than him because his (and the “progressives”‘) views are out of the mainstream.

[Update a few minutes later]

The bigotry behind the push for gun control:

We notice two things these three men have in common. First, there is no indication any of them have ever misused a gun, either accidentally or deliberately–in contrast to Marshall’s correspondent, who nonetheless evinces a smug sense of his own superiority over them.

Second, they all have eccentric political views, which Marshall’s correspondent seems to think is an argument for taking away their guns. Never mind the Second Amendment, do these guys even respect the First?

Not really. They just pay lip service.

A Plague On The Earth

That’s what misanthrope extremist David Attenborough thinks of humanity.

I suspect he also wants to confine the infection to a single planet.

And as always, my advice to such people is to lead by example.

[Update a while later]

Here’s another person who should lead by example. Paul Ehrlich, who’s been wrong about pretty much all of his predictions for forty years, says that no one has a right to twelve, or even three children.